One high-tech journalist is making a compelling argument for why chipsets from graphics chip designer NVIDIA stand the most likely chance to replace those from Intel in Apple's next-generation Macintosh computers.

In a report earlier this week, AppleInsider noted that Apple appears to be forgoing Intel's Montevina chipset -- not its Core 2 Duo processors -- for an unknown alternative beginning with an upcoming generation of Macs.

Weighing that report alongside comments by Apple chief financial officer Peter Oppenheimer about an upcoming "product transition," as well as strategic plans on the part of NVIDIA, PC Perspective's Ryan Shrout concludes that there's "no doubt that come fall you will find updated MacBooks and MacBook Pros with NVIDIA chipsets and GPUs inside."

Shrout's analysis starts by evaluating Apple's options should it decide not to use Intel's supporting chipsets going forward. Currently, the company's 13-inch MacBooks obtain their graphics capabilities via the Intel GMA X3100 graphics processor built into Intel's Santa Rosa chipset. And while there's nothing stopping Apple from developing its own proprietary integrated graphics solution, assuming that task on its own would be daunting.

"This would take much longer, and require many more resources than I think Apple has in its engineering team," he writes. "Designing their own core logic and IGP (integrated graphics processor) chipset just isnÂt in the equation at this point."

Apple's remaining option is to therefore reach out to a third party chipset manufacturer, for which there are only two suitors: ATI (which is now part of AMD) and NVIDIA. While AMD may seem like an ideal partner, Shrout argues that the company lacks a "top-shelf chipset" and has been spending the majority of its time on its Puma platform, which is built for use solely with its own breed of Turion mobile processors.

On the other hand, NVIDIA has been developing its own MCP79 family of chipsets that will work with Intel's latest mobile processors and compete directly with Montevina. The company has also been quite vocal on what it thinks of Intel's integrated graphics solutions. During an analyst conference earlier this year, chief executive Jen-Hsun Huang called out Intel on performance and promised that NVIDIA would "open a can of whoop ass" later this year.

Shrout believes the MCP79 is exactly where Apple may be headed. Each variant of the chipset incorporates a GeForce graphics core supporting Shader Model 4.0 visual effects, NVIDIA's VP3 video processor for accelerating movie playback, and support for power management techniques that include Hybrid Power, Hybrid SLI and Hybrid Performance. The MCP79 also sports an HDMI video output interface and supports features very similar to Intel's own Centrino 2 platform, such as support for a 1066 MHz front side bus, DDR2 or DDR3 memory, DriveCache (similar to Intel's Turbo Memory flash memory cache) and up to 20 PCI Express 2.0 lanes.

And unlike Intel's chipsets, which contain separate northbridge and southbridge chips, the MCP79 is actually just a single compact chip. It's also compatible with a new line of GeForce mobile GPUs introduced by NVIDIA this week.

Before NVIDIA suddenly went silent on its mobile plans earlier this year, the company said it was developing at least six distinct members of the MCP79, including a version with integrated graphics that could possibly be powerful enough for a MacBook Pro without the need for a discrete GPU, as well as an ultra-low voltage version that would be a sure candidate for the MacBook Air.

In his report, Shrout also made reference to NVIDIA's sudden secrecy.

"They have been surprisingly silent for quite some time; there have been no planned media summits or technology days on these well known mobility products," he wrote. Â*"And that fits in with the traditional Apple mentality of keeping their partners silent as long as possible. Â*If an OEM asks you to pull back on promoting a product you have had in development for this long, that OEM had better be as big a name as Apple."

A move towards NVIDIA chipsets would also address comparatively weak 3D gaming support for Apple's MacBook and iMac lines while playing into the company's longer term software strategy. One of the more publicized features of Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard is support for the proposed OpenCL standard, which will allow next-generation Macs to pass off to the new wave of graphics chips some of the calculations once reserved only for the primary CPU.

Why has Intel not purchased NVIDIA? If this is true, I bet Intel is loving Steve about now.

Wasn't there some speculation on intel.com that Jobs' cancer had returned? Maybe that was on msn.com where I saw it. Or was it on a verizonwireless.com blog? I'm sorry, I just don't remember--and my name isn't Scott Moritz!

Makes sense to me...also lessens Apple's reliance on Intel for processor AND chipset, and allows them a little more secrecy again as to when they release updated hardware (only have to follow Intel's processor refreshes, not their chipset refreshes too)...not that these would be the primary reasons for them doing it.

NVIDIA has always been very boisterous about their products and hasn't said a word in a while (as stated in the article)
Intel is still having issues with their Montevina chipset this close to their new launch date.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Why has Intel not purchased NVIDIA? If this is true, I bet Intel is loving Steve about now.

I don't think Intel can afford Nvidia.

Nvidia's integrated graphics are pretty good, and they do offer a single-chip solution (no separate southbridge). But those are the only positives from this.

Two issues that I have:

1) Nvidia's northbridge chips run very hot. Hot enough to cause stability issues on desktop mobos that normally have generous cooling. Gamers tolerate them because they're the only way to get SLI, but nobody else in their right mind would choose NV over Intel for a chipset. *I should add that this applies to current desktop computers, not mobile products. But the difference is less than you'd think.

2) Nvidia does not have a QPI license and Intel says that it will not sell them one. This means that there will never be an Nvidia chipset for Nehalem processors. Of course, companies do change their minds (Intel wants the quid-pro-quo of an SLI license, which NV won't give them).

The text I read stated, "Peter Oppenheimer, Apple's CFO, said on a conference call that the company's profit margins will be pressured in part by a "future product transition" that he said he was not at liberty to discuss at the present time."

I don't read that as "significant profit issues."

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

I don't know about the new nVidia products, but I hope they are power efficient and run cool, since older nVidia chipsets had the reputation of not being very power efficient. Plus, I hope they support all the different throttling modes in Penryn.

Seems like a decent option for a MacBook due to the IGP, but not really for the MBP or iMac since they use discrete GPUs anyways.

How come no one see this as a good thing? If Apple were to use Nvidia Chipset, then it could mean that in the future the new MacBook will have a better GPU.

I agree. This sounds like a potential big step forward for the mb &/or mb pro. Not sure how exclusive Nvidia's new chips will be to Apple.

From what I remember (?) Macs have a past history of being behind the curve when it came to GPUs. Things have improved in recent years, but the thought of being first to market with more advanced technology in this area, used to be an extreme long shot (even if its not necesarily the GPU we're talking about).

Im inclined to call everything reported here and a few days ago fanciful BS. Nothing more than sensationalist drivel to help fill in the the void when there is nothing else going on to report on.

1) Intel's Nehalem is a SOC design, it is due early 09. I doubt Apple will not use Nehalem nor likely Apple will do a major overhaul before Nehalem.

2) Nvidia's chipset in question wont be ready till later this year, not in 4 weeks time when new MB/MBP's are due.

3) Nvidia have a history of unreliable, non-functional and buggy NForce chipsets, Apple can't risk getting involved with such problems which may exist.

4) Nvidia and Intel do not have a good relationship, Intel denying Nvidia some key licensing due to their competitiveness in some markets.

5) Apple would seriously p!ss Intel off if they did a 180 and began using 3rd party solutions so close to their own technology soon to be released. Additionally Intel are far more open when it comes to development source and documentation. Nvidia OTOH has a repressive closed source development policy.

Im inclined to call everything reported here and a few days ago fanciful BS. Nothing more than sensationalist drivel to help fill in the the void when there is nothing else going on to report on.

1) Intel's Nehalem is a SOC design, it is due early 09. I doubt Apple will not use Nehalem nor likely Apple will do a major overhaul before Nehalem.

2) Nvidia's chipset in question wont be ready till later this year, not in 4 weeks time when new MB/MBP's are due.

3) Nvidia have a history of unreliable, non-functional and buggy NForce chipsets, Apple can't risk getting involved with such problems which may exist.

4) Nvidia and Intel do not have a good relationship, Intel denying Nvidia some key licensing due to their competitiveness in some markets.

5) Apple would seriously p!ss Intel off if they did a 180 and began using 3rd party solutions so close to their own technology soon to be released. Additionally Intel are far more open when it comes to development source and documentation. Nvidia OTOH has a repressive closed source development policy.

You make some very good arguments, but note that Nehalem for mobile platform isn't due until late 2009.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Im inclined to call everything reported here and a few days ago fanciful BS. Nothing more than sensationalist drivel to help fill in the the void when there is nothing else going on to report on.

1) Intel's Nehalem is a SOC design, it is due early 09. I doubt Apple will not use Nehalem nor likely Apple will do a major overhaul before Nehalem.

2) Nvidia's chipset in question wont be ready till later this year, not in 4 weeks time when new MB/MBP's are due.

3) Nvidia have a history of unreliable, non-functional and buggy NForce chipsets, Apple can't risk getting involved with such problems which may exist.

4) Nvidia and Intel do not have a good relationship, Intel denying Nvidia some key licensing due to their competitiveness in some markets.

5) Apple would seriously p!ss Intel off if they did a 180 and began using 3rd party solutions so close to their own technology soon to be released. Additionally Intel are far more open when it comes to development source and documentation. Nvidia OTOH has a repressive closed source development policy.

1) Nehalem integrates the memory controller onto the CPU, but it is not in any way, shape, or form a SoC design. It requires a northbridge and southbridge (which will themselves eventually be integrated into a single chip) for many functions.

2) I don't know anything about Nvidia's or Apple's release schedule, so no comment.

3) NForce has indeed sucked more than it hasn't. Mostly the problems have stemmed from Nvidia's inability to write stable drivers. And MCP79 is supposed to be 55nm, so it may not have heat problems like all their other current NForce chips.

4) Yep, like I said earlier, Nvidia wants QPI and Intel wants SLI. Deadlock. However, mobile Nehalem may not be out for a year, who knows what Q3 '09 will look like.

5) Additionally, I don't think Intel is too hung up on the northbridge used as long as their processors are front-and-center. The CPU is what the customer sees on the spec sheet.

2) Nvidia's chipset in question wont be ready till later this year, not in 4 weeks time when new MB/MBP's are due.

3) Nvidia have a history of unreliable, non-functional and buggy NForce chipsets, Apple can't risk getting involved with such problems which may exist.

Apple already uses nVidia GPUs in their products, e.g., the 17 inch MBP I'm using for this reply, and the 17 inch Powerbook G4 that it replaced.

At the very least, the Apple engineering teams would likely be looking at both solutions to see which one is better (including the pricing structure).

Yes, I've seen developmental nVidia chips have bugs, but they work out, just like a lot of engineering first takes. Sounding standard, I'll neither confirm nor deny how I've seen them...

The Intel Integrated graphics are limited for Apple users. Several higher end games, e.g., the EA conversions, don't support them. It was really sad that my copy of Command and Conquer 3 had to sit around my house until April when I got this MBP. (I had G4s and MBs in the house, but no MBPs or Mac Pros.) By getting a non-Intel GPU into the MBs, the customers will have more useful machines.

Oh, and a thought on the name MCP79. Does it sound like the evil program in Tron? The movie came out in 1982, though.

P.S. Gosh, it's been almost four years since I've logged in around here (at least according to the board info in the upper right corner. I've been looking at the news much more often then that, but I guess I hadn't posted in a while.

NVIDIA just release a note saying a severe issue could cause G84s/G86s fatal problems was found and will cost the company 200 to 300 millions to settle the problem.

NVIDIA's GPU & Chipset totally rely on TSMC's fab, so far their progress over to 55nm is not doing well, G92 G94 G96 suffered and GT200 is the BIGGEST flop in years of its own history. And also 55nm G9X is not much cooler, can't reach a much higher speed, the only pro visible is the smaller footprint thus the lower cost.

NVIDIA's IGP is not that impressive either. Better than Intel's of course. But last time I checked, the fastest IGP is still ATI's 780G.

NVIDIA's MCP sucks, period. It's so hot I have to install a rediculously big copper heatsink with a 4cm fan to keep it running, otherwise my mobo might melt for heaven's sake.

Talking about OpenCL, did anyone remember who's on the same boat with Apple? Yeah, not Intel, it has larrabee x86 codeset, not NVIDIA, it so caught up in its own CUDA dream, but AMD/ATI, it gives OpenCL a full frontal bear hug - emmm, I wonder what would actually happen over the next few months.

Of course, the solution, as I've read, is a BIOS fix that basically cranks up the fans on your laptop. Waste battery power and make the computer annoying with the hopes that the gpu will survive till' warranty expiration.

Poor execution.

Regarding the story's writing about AMD lacking top-shelf cards, AMD is exceptionally competitive with their $300 top range card. And not many people care to spend upwards of $700 on a top range NVIDIA card to eek out a few more points in some benchmark. But as far as either making Apple more competitive in the gaming arena, it's not likely to happen. MS is too dominant with DirectX. Apple can only push from the OpenGL side and possibly invest in some GL game developers -exclusive title, perhaps.

I wouldn't drop a dime on NVIDIA. Instead, I'd take a harder look at ATI/AMD. They now have the finest integrated graphics solution -far ahead of Intel or NVIDIA- with 780G (in desktop variant). Will be interesting to see what they do with portable... Plus the red team could probably be purchased for a song. It's too bad they let their cpu's slip up so much...

Of course, the solution, as I've read, is a BIOS fix that basically cranks up the fans on your laptop. Waste battery power and make the computer annoying with the hopes that the gpu will survive till' warranty expiration.

Poor execution.

Regarding the story's writing about AMD lacking top-shelf cards, AMD is exceptionally competitive with their $300 top range card. And not many people care to spend upwards of $700 on a top range NVIDIA card to eek out a few more points in some benchmark. But as far as either making Apple more competitive in the gaming arena, it's not likely to happen. MS is too dominant with DirectX. Apple can only push from the OpenGL side and possibly invest in some GL game developers -exclusive title, perhaps.

I wouldn't drop a dime on NVIDIA. Instead, I'd take a harder look at ATI/AMD. They now have the finest integrated graphics solution -far ahead of Intel or NVIDIA- with 780G (in desktop variant). Will be interesting to see what they do with portable... Plus the red team could probably be purchased for a song. It's too bad they let their cpu's slip up so much...

Nvidia has been very aggressive with their products and expansion. The bad GPUs are an unfortunate slip up. ATI still does well but how long can it push forward with AMD holding it down? (I refer to AMD's almost-there-but-not-quite catchup with Intel)...

As long as Nvidia manages good operations and improves in these areas, they've got a stunning range of products for many industries. Gaming GPUs, Chipsets for PC and Mac. Open GL has always been their strength - so Open GL or maybe Open GL ES plays to their advantage. We're talking Physics (PhysX) which will probably be integrated into Open CL / CUDA / Etc.

In the desktop, portable and even mobile space, Nvidia has a lot to offer Apple. As long as quality control is maintained.

NVIDIA just release a note saying a severe issue could cause G84s/G86s fatal problems was found and will cost the company 200 to 300 millions to settle the problem.

NVIDIA's GPU & Chipset totally rely on TSMC's fab, so far their progress over to 55nm is not doing well, G92 G94 G96 suffered and GT200 is the BIGGEST flop in years of its own history. And also 55nm G9X is not much cooler, can't reach a much higher speed, the only pro visible is the smaller footprint thus the lower cost.

NVIDIA's IGP is not that impressive either. Better than Intel's of course. But last time I checked, the fastest IGP is still ATI's 780G.

NVIDIA's MCP sucks, period. It's so hot I have to install a rediculously big copper heatsink with a 4cm fan to keep it running, otherwise my mobo might melt for heaven's sake.

Talking about OpenCL, did anyone remember who's on the same boat with Apple? Yeah, not Intel, it has larrabee x86 codeset, not NVIDIA, it so caught up in its own CUDA dream, but AMD/ATI, it gives OpenCL a full frontal bear hug - emmm, I wonder what would actually happen over the next few months.

The manufacturing problems you mentioned are faced by everyone trying to get below 65nm. Intel had problems with Penryn ramp ups which saw the delays to the Penryn MacBook Pros. ATI and AMD do well in certain situations but their future is far from rosy. Intel's Montevina chipset may be causing issues which is the whole point of these past few articles. Intel's integrated graphics, 2 years past and a few years in the future, would be underperforming by all estimates compared to an 8600M GT 512MB.

Nvidia is facing a few hundred million bucks worth of problems with their GPUs. AFAIK, it hasn't spread to many other GPU lines.

The latest 9-series and G-series are not groundbreaking in and of themselves, because they're evolutionary variants of what Nvidia worked hard on in the 8-series.

I'm not saying their perfect, I'm saying from Apple's point of view everyone, such as AMD, ATI, Intel, Nvidia are really hitting walls right now with the performance-space-power demands of high performing portable computing. That's why Apple is hedging its bets with ARM, PA Semi, and so on from the other side.

All companies above are facing all these challenges with regards to Moore's Law. The thing is, who can pull through the best? Who is/are the best partner(s) for Apple?

How is Apple hedging its bets? What is their strategy with regards to ARM, OpenGL ES, Gaming (remember the iPhone and iPod Touch is now a huge gaming platform in the mobile space), CUDA, Physics, PhysX, OpenCL..? Video and Photo processing? Web page processing?

In my opinion, Nvidia, Intel and ARM are the ones that are most likely to pull through, and provide the strongest partnership and flexibility for the range of demands Apple is going to pose to them over the next five years. And we know, these demands from Apple can sometimes be impossible ones. Intel has "legacy" challenges that may hinder it slightly in the mobile, ultra-portable and high-end-GPU space, though of course it's CPU strategy is well above par right now.

Chipsets are a tricky thing because it also depends on the implementor. If you take an Nvidia chipset delivered by Gigabyte for example, with good mobo heatpipes, passive cooling, solid-state capacitors, these certainly give Intel and AMD/ATI a run for their money.

The manufacturing problems you mentioned are faced by everyone trying to get below 65nm. Intel had problems with Penryn ramp ups which saw the delays to the Penryn MacBook Pros. ATI and AMD do well in certain situations but their future is far from rosy. Intel's Montevina chipset may be causing issues which is the whole point of these past few articles. Intel's integrated graphics, 2 years past and a few years in the future, would be underperforming by all estimates compared to an 8600M GT 512MB.

Nvidia is facing a few hundred million bucks worth of problems with their GPUs. AFAIK, it hasn't spread to many other GPU lines.

Of course you believe nV's excuse for all the faulty G84s/G86s, I can totally understand.

But from the recent HP/Dell announcements, there are something much bigger than nV's portrait to say at least. Look how many modes are affected! Sorry for my lack of confidence in nV.

And they ain't even gonna recall these bad chips, instead they leave their dear costomers with a time bomb only set off a few months hoping the explosion happens after warrant expired. It's sooooo not OK. Of course you can say it's HP or Dell's fault, but I say after all, it is nV's chip, and nV isn't going to pay for the recall.

As for the chipset aspect, no your analogy isn't good. a hot chip is a hot chip, if Apple have to apply extra heat conduct or make a laptop consumes more watts than the Intel counterpart, no it's not good enough. No matter how fancy your mobo looks like or How cool your kickass heatsink designed. More TDP is a BAD BAD thing for Laptop, period.

So why Apple should turn to nV for the chipset solution? I can only see one reason - montevina G45 G43 turn out sucks royally, Apple have no choice but go with nV. But... is that really happening? I don't think so.

Oh, about MCP79's IGP, we better forget it, no way it's gonna get near 8600M’s performance, its USs will be cut back so much its mother won't recognize it. BTW: Should DX10 matter on a MacBook? PV3 is interesting though, but Apple have to make its own darling QuickTime Framework compatible with PV3's video accelerate ability first. and I don't see it happening soon either.

AMD's Chipsets and GPU lines are much stronger than last season with the new hot cake RV770 and the beloved 780G, but their CPU line will keep boringly underperforming unfortunately. Yes Apple won't adopt their CPUs or Chipsets anytime soon. But a new ATI Powered video card which also can do some GPGPU work under OpenCL framework? Totally.

Apple already uses nVidia GPUs in their products, e.g., the 17 inch MBP I'm using for this reply, and the 17 inch Powerbook G4 that it replaced.

At the very least, the Apple engineering teams would likely be looking at both solutions to see which one is better (including the pricing structure).

Yes, I've seen developmental nVidia chips have bugs, but they work out, just like a lot of engineering first takes. Sounding standard, I'll neither confirm nor deny how I've seen them...

The Intel Integrated graphics are limited for Apple users. Several higher end games, e.g., the EA conversions, don't support them. It was really sad that my copy of Command and Conquer 3 had to sit around my house until April when I got this MBP. (I had G4s and MBs in the house, but no MBPs or Mac Pros.) By getting a non-Intel GPU into the MBs, the customers will have more useful machines.

Oh, and a thought on the name MCP79. Does it sound like the evil program in Tron? The movie came out in 1982, though.

P.S. Gosh, it's been almost four years since I've logged in around here (at least according to the board info in the upper right corner. I've been looking at the news much more often then that, but I guess I hadn't posted in a while.

I would say you have just been conservative in your public opinions, but 1 post in 4 years is something.

All companies above are facing all these challenges with regards to Moore's Law. The thing is, who can pull through the best? Who is/are the best partner(s) for Apple?

I'm thinking that Intel remains Apple's best partner moving forward as they have thier own fabs and commitment to move past 45nm. Granted AMD is part of IBM's fab alliance but Intel is going to be more agile in some ways than an alliance. For example, IBM's sticking with gate first is due in part to difficulties and cost in getting the entire alliance into gate-last/gate replacement. Intel is going gate-last and doesn't need to coordinate with anyone but itself.

AMD's problem is that most of the smarts live at IBM and not AMD. Intel has high-k at 45nm. AMD is waiting on IBM for high-k...they might get there but given the 2 year cycle it may not mean a whole lot. Announcements for 45nm high-k in early 2007 have not translated into anything but a bit of dancing on the part of AMD in 2008.

Foundries like TSMC are likely to see growth and production pains as even major players like TI go to them and other foundries beyond the 45nm process node. But there you're depending on someone else's engineering prowess and capacities.

I terms of nVidia's quiet on their upcoming mobile chipsets, I think it might be indicative of a pullback rather than a secret deal with Apple. With the problems in the G84/G86 lines, the rush to put out a 55nm shrink to make the 9800GTX+ to compete against ATI's 4850, and the need to push out a 55nm shrink of the GT200 series to cut costs, it's quite likely that engineers have been pulled off their mobile chipsets to address other problems.